On 05/10/2009 08:34 PM, Shakthi Kannan wrote: > Updated. Have also mentioned about "# %foo" in the Notes slide. Please > use version 1.1. Thanks for your feedback.
A few more notes: Source0 should point to the upstream url (ie) something like http://shakthimaan.com/source/foo-1.1.tar.bz2 That's important because in most cases, you are packaging something written by another developer and others should be able to verify that the tarball matches what is provided by the upstream project. Fedora routinely runs source url checks as part of the QA process. If it fails, it is flagged for manual review. Also, any non-trivial package would have a non-empty BuildRequires and Requires section. While GCC and other core utilities are part of the default build root in Fedora, it can be included as a BR for the sake of the example or perhaps it would be ideal to include a second example with those. Also you should include a README in the tarball and introduce %doc macro in your sample spec file. The macros section in your slide can refer to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:RPMMacros In your notes, you should mention it is possible to define a custom macro easily in the spec file and many package do make use of them routinely. For example, the python packaging guidelines in Fedora state that python package should start with pyfoo or python-foo when upstream is named foo and I defined a custom macro %define upstreamname foo and used that in my spec file. Also distributions tend to use custom macros either within particular package types (Fedora font packages use font specific macros and the macros are defined in /etc/rpm/macros.fonts, part of fontpackages-devel package which is specified as a BR for all fonts) or system wide. The Fedora system wide macros are defined by /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/macros which is part of redhat-rpm-config package. Hope that helps. Rahul _______________________________________________ Fedora-india mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-india
